Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

National Catholic Register ^ | January 2, 2017 | Edward Pentin

[BlessedBeGod]

...If the Church were to change its rules on shared Eucharistic Communion it would “go against Revelation and the Magisterium”, leading Christians to “commit blasphemy and sacrilege,” an Italian theologian has warned.

Drawing on the Church’s teaching based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, Msgr. Nicola Bux, a former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed that non-Catholic Christians must have undertaken baptism and confirmation in the Catholic Church, and repented of grave sin through sacramental confession, in order to be able to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

Msgr. Bux was responding to the Register about concerns that elements of the current pontificate might be sympathetic of a form of “open Communion” proposed by the German Protestant theologian, Jürgen Moltmann.

The concerns have arisen primarily due to the Holy Father’s own comments on Holy Communion and Lutherans, his apparent support for some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, and how others have used his frequently repeated maxim about the Eucharist: that it is “not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

The debate specifically over intercommunion with Christian denominations follows recent remarks by Cardinal Walter Kasper who, in a Dec. 10 interview with Avvenire, said he hopes Pope Francis’ next declaration will open the way for intercommunion with other denominations “in special cases.”

The German theologian said shared Eucharistic communion is just a matter of time, and that the Pope’s recent participation in the Reformation commemoration in Lund has given “a new thrust” to the “ecumenical process.”

Pope Francis has often expressed his admiration for Cardinal Kasper’s theology whose thinking has significantly influenced…the priorities of this pontificate, particularly on the Eucharist.

For Moltmann, Holy Communion is “the Lord's supper, not something organized by a church or a denomination”...

[MHGinTN]

Done. I pray to see you in the clouds for His trumpet is about to calling His to come away.

[boatbums]

The irony is delicious, isn’t it? ;o)

[boatbums]

And yet, your college of cardinals voted in this pope, just like all the rest. Again the questions remain which I don't recall seeing answers to. Does the Holy Spirit guide the college of cardinals in selecting the pope? And How is allowing popes like Francis an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the church from error in faith or morals as you guys always claim?

Kinda blows that "unbroken line of succession from Peter" meme out of the water, too. Looks like a 60+ year gap according to a few here.

[pax_et_bonum]

Thank you.

:-)

[daniel1212]

As a Catholic, I will defend Protestant Christians, but I believe that there are Protestants who will not defend me.

That is simply too much an ambiguous and broad statement. Certainly i could defend you in arguing about one of the many Truths we both concur on, but not in defending Catholicism in general. And many of the latter here do indeed seem to wish for the ways and means of the blood inquisitions. And the SSPX type certainly do not believe we can be saved as evangelicals, while salvation is possible for certain Caths, but sadly i think it is a relatively rare case among Catholics in this country.

[daniel1212]

Yes, that was very interesting. I note, as you’re no doubt aware, that children with gluten-intolerance become extremely ill after receiving the wafer. It wouldn’t be lack of faith, or other theological issues, in their case. It’s just their body’s inability to process gluten. (I’m noting this in agreement with what you posted, btw. I realize that those who actually need to answer my question ignored it—and understandably so.)

If not for the delusion, it would be rather embarrassing to insist that something does not exist even though it can be demonstrated to be real based on the same evidences that did and could show that Christ came in the flesh, while asserting that that which utterly fails to be manifest and test as Christ really is His crucified body and blood .

Yet Catholics insist they are sticking to a plain literal reading of the text.

[daniel1212]

Regarding. Gen 3:15...The catholic encyclopedia online notes the vulgate translation of Gen 3:15 cannot be defended critically. Yet Catholics continue to use this translation resulting in bad theology.

Repent and Believe: Please post link.

More than just a link , by God's grace: .“Her” as in “her seed” may be seen as referring to Mary by some, but which does not translate into the supreme exaltation Rome gives to her, officially stated or implicitly approved, almost to being a 4th member of the Trinity. There is enmity between the serpent and believers but that does that make them sinless.

• . Some Catholics also assert that it is Mary who crushes the head of the serpent, based on a translation which reads “her seed,”but this crushing is what Christ did.

The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church.

Note that the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:

"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Immaculate Conception)

• In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” and it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.

The approved notes in the official New American Catholic Bible (1970 ver.), while also allowing the Marian view, explains this verse,They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

• As regards spermatos not being seen elsewhere in Scripture, what the Catholic does not say is that we will not find it anywhere in the Hebrew, as it is Greek, and in which there is no “her” in the phrase “her seed.” Instead, spermatos for “her seed” comes from the Vulgate by way of a translators choice in the LXX, in which “sperm” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “seed.”

The Septuagint also has the same word, “sperma,” for the serpent and speaks of the "spermatos" of the woman and the "spermatos" of the serpent, while there are only 7 words with two repetitions out of the 17 word sentence which is translated "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;" shi^yth (put/place) 'e^yba^h (enmity/hatred) be^yn (between) 'ishsha^h / na^shi^ym (wife/woman) be^yn (between) zera? (seed) zera? (seed), which illustrates the degree of interpretation this verse is open to.

[boatbums]

I thought the same thing! Anxious to hear the rationalizations for that one. ;o)

[Repent and Believe]

” I haven’t seen Catholic women cover their heads in ages.

Or are you claiming that one (sic) *real, true* Catholic women cover their heads and that if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she’s not a *real true* Catholic?”

Just look at every photo and drawing or painting made prior to A.D.1960 that shows women present at Mass and their heads are covered.

Or visit a place where the Traditional Latin Mass is being celebrated today and you’ll see the same.

False Catholics are numerous today, and they are easily spotted as they do not cover their heads and do not attend a true Mass. True Masses are in Latin.

As I said earlier the modern day “Catholics” are actually protestants because the apostate hierarchy tried to change the Mass in the 60’s to be more like a protestant service.

But the protestants have had far more practice at rebelling against the church, and are so much better at anti-Catholic services. That helps explain why so, so many Catholics since around A.D.1960 became apostates and started attending protestant services instead of attending the false Mass.

Sad as it is, it is quite fascinating history when seen in this light.

[Repent and Believe]

I would be extremely grateful to hear an answer “Yes” or “No” to the following question:

Is God incapable of imparting to a man, His authority to forgive the sins of others and to withhold God’s forgiveness?

[mrobisr]

“True Masses are in Latin”
So I must learn a new language to be saved and to be able to participate in a church service? The only difference between you and a pharisee/sadducees is that your not a descendant of Jacob/Israel. Good luck with that legalistic idea of salvation and Christianity. The Jews tried it two thousand years ago and it didn’t work then either. I pray that the Lord Jesus open your eyes to the truth of what true “grace” is and what the faith of Abraham looks like.

[daniel1212]

Is God incapable of imparting to a man, His authority to forgive the sins of others and to withhold God’s forgiveness?

Certainly, just as God is able to give man the power to take life, but attempting to establish a doctrine based upon what God could do is another logical fallacy, which you specialize in.

And your doctrine is not that God gives man the power to bind or loose one in their sins, which is what the OT magisterium could judicially do in declaring one guilty or not guilty, with dissent being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) though they could be wrong.

Nor is that of corporately biding one in sin to be chastised and then dropping the charges, as in the case of the incestuous man of 1Co. 5. And which relates to Mt. 18. And in which case Paul said that if the church forgave that man so also would He as acting for Christ. (2Co. 2:10)

Nor is it that believers can obtain mercy for souls being judged due to sins, as in the case of the palsied man being forgiven and thus healed, (Mk. 2:1-7), and in confessing sins and praying to each other in general to be healed, and elders in the case of the infirm, (Ja. 5) as well as discerning and declaring one to be bound in sins, as Peter did with Simon (and who was told to pray to God to be forgiven: Acts 8:22-23)

But in contrast your doctrine is that believers must normally confess sins to your unscriptural priests in order to obtain forgiveness, which is nowhere seen in the life of the NT church, in which the only exhortation to confess sins toward others it toward other believers in general.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:16-20) In addition, simply the power to

[af_vet_1981]

In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” and it can refer to or include women in general and all women, (Gn. 14:16; Ex. 25:22; Est. 1:17) with the Lord speaking to Eve but including all women.

Where is the source for this claim ? I do not see what you wrote in the Catholic Encyclopedia here.

[BlueDragon]

I thought the same thing! Anxious to hear the rationalizations for that one. ;o)

There has already been degree of rationalization attempted for it.

The problem with that rationalization is that it does not *quite* work, not when trying to hold fast to precepts precious & peculiar to Romish-centric (being the OTC, dontcha' know?) 'thought' at the same time(!).

The same ol' same ol', with extra added difficulty?

How long can vacancy exist and there still be spirit (enough?) available -- even readily available ON HAND in order to allegedly 'pass on' by way of laying on of hands the Spirit of the Most High God -- whenever time comes to clear out the false "popes" and their flanker sidemen --to replace them all with the real-deal legitimate? Never mind how Paul was not ordained by any man (or else was quite the liar -- and no one called him on it). Shush, and don't dare try to understand Scripture in any dimensional direction other than in these (the OTC's regular, self-promoting BUt NoW with extra added slathering of sedevacantism secret sauce!) clearly fenced and defined pathways.

Otherwise, from among some of our FRomish Friends (not all of them, we should always bear in mind) it is as I've offered descriptive corollary towards before ---it is as if Christ be held virtual hostage-- it being said no one can rightfully meet with Him save by going through the a priesthood "in communion" with this same Church that interestingly enough also is said (by some, not to be confused with a different *not all* I just had mentioned) to be presently suffering deficiency serious enough that none of a last almost 60 years of doctrinal development is in the least valid.

So now... a ~they~ tell us?

Whatever happened to the likes of;

when we do it (change/adjust and/or add doctrine and dogma) it is approved. It has to be. WeeBthee OTC and can do no wrong, can commit no theological error, not in regards to "faith and morals", not when it has backing of (nowadays, extremely internalized in comparison to much earlier centuries, like a millennia and more ago) 'Church Council(s)' along with the ever-so-perquisite and always oh, so solemn papal signatory providing notes of explanation cementing formal consent.

???

I mean, what the hey? Things running along lines I've (admittedly, crudely) sketched outline for, above, got ~them~ all the way through the setting into carefully crushed, and sifted through stone (with added concrete binder) two much ballyhooed since inception dogmas (immaculate conception & papal infallibility).

According to some, despite the extra added gyrations and machinations that went into building up that yet more (alleged) example of perfection in "development" ...for reasons both vague and sundry the magic went bye-bye, nothing much left (on highest levels) but placeholders shuffling 'round mucking up the works.

Yet we are commanded to Repent, and Believe (believe in the OTC or go home/hell) while we wait clearer explanation of how that is supposed to work there, at the OTC. What brief explanation was already supplied can have no possibility (no Way, hey-zeus) of applying anywhere else, no possibility of applying to anyone elsewhere (No Exceptions) no possibility it had operated and functioned after a fashion, the Lord supplying His own Spirit, a touch here, a loving guidance there, amid those pesky persons (who won't submit to us!). Those pesky people must Repent and Believe (believe "in" the OTC, or no zeus for you! we laugh when you call us zoup-nazis then cry cry cry how you persecute us so!)

Nope. ~They~ checked, and the hostage is still being held. Just ax ~'dem~ they'll be glad to tell you. They even have it in lozenge form, which is the chiefest Hostage form, dontcha' know? Can't go see the zeus(es) unless regularly receiving said Hostage lozenge but only after having told one's most innermost (and worstest) secrets one won't dare let anyone else know. Must keep up outwards appearances...It would be too embarrassing to go too far into detail about sins that easily (and all too commonly?) plague we mere & lesser than priest-es-es mortals.

...wowza...what a mind-bending system...

[boatbums]

What I find so astounding - ok, there are MANY such things on this subject I find astounding - is that threads such as this one are left to be argued between non-Catholic Christians and what must be a small number of whatever-they-call-themselves-today "Tradionalist" Roman Catholics. Here we are, a few former Catholics who know what that religion bills itself as, up against those who would further subdivide their much ballyhooed One, True Church expecting them to explain how they can defend past ex cathedra declarations from "infallible" Popes while declaring in their own uninfallible way that the past 60 years of modern Popes don't count.

The astounding part is that there haven't been ANY FRoman Catholics countering them! Are ALL Freeper Catholics now on the same page? Aren't there any who would defend Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis as "legitimate" and at least some of their writings as relevant and binding? Have they ALL burned their modern Catechisms that make reference to Vatican II? Do they all now attend Latin Mass churches with their priests' backs to them and their women wear headcoverings? Should we assume every Catholic Freeper is in full agreement with these Sedavacanist/Traditionalist Catholics? I don't think that's true, but where is everyone and why don't they speak up?

My guess is that they know they have a serious contradiction on their hands and no real way to get out of admitting it. Either that or they just don't want to have another Catholic telling them they are heretics and really Protestants at heart - especially not these Catholics that are protesting the loudest.

[Mark17]

Here we are, a few former Catholics who know what that religion bills itself as

You are correct BB. Don't forget Old Yeller and Knarf also.
I was attracted to the TRUE Christians, due to their clean living, where I knew I was a trashed out sinner. I wanted what they had, something I was 100% sure I DIDN'T have. At that time in my life, if someone asked me if I was a Christian, I would have said no, I am a Catholic. I don't know what others have experienced, but that is my experience. 👍

[knarf]

Yup, me too ... "a Catholic"

I remember waking up on the stoop in Boston hung over from last night ... Sunday morning, and watching delicious looking girls walking to church.

I have no idea what denomination, just that they were VERY pretty (it was 1969/70 or 71 ... those daze are a blur) ... and In my fantasy, I saw myself with one of them.

It all jumbled up in my drugged/alcoholed brain and I knew I'd NEVER score a good girl ... all I had were ho's and zoned out hippy chicks ... good for sex, but nothing to live with.

I inately knew those church girls were good cooks, smelled nice and embodied Harriet Nelson as a twenty something.

In 1981 I got saved and God gave me a delicious looking born again woman for 21 years and five kids before cancer took her.

THEN God gave me a hot, born again Filipina NOW my help meet.

Probably too much information for FR, but God has been VERY good to me, and all I had to do was give up on me and accept HIM.

Easy peasy.

[Mark17]

I am familiar with those born again Filipinas. Here in the Philippines, our wives would be neighbors. We hope to see you soon, in the mystical city of Davao, where time spent here, truly IS living the American dream.
By and large, Americans are treated like royalty, especially American men, because it was American men, who freed them from the Japanese, and they have NEVER forgotten it. See you here bro. 😁👻

This is the rage here. Hope you laugh about it as much as I do.

[Repent and Believe]

“So I must learn a new language to be saved and to be able to participate in a church service?...”

Not. So. Fast.

You are jumping to conclusions. Judge not a case without a full hearing.

Please take a few minutes to read the end of an article written on Latin, then reassess what we are doing.

Christians have been using Latin exclusively in the Mass for 1400 years. The includes Mr. Luther before he became an apostate.

Snippet:

Why not have Mass in English? “But would it not be better for the Catholic Church to conduct its worship in a language understood by the worshippers?” Yes, and no. The advantages of so doing are plausible in theory; the disadvantages render the idea difficult and even totally impracticable.

We do not intend to deny that, in the abstract, a service in the language of the country would be very useful – possibly preferable to a service in an unknown tongue; but the difficulties in the way of such action are so great that the Catholic Church has wisely persevered in offering her public worship in one language over the greater part of the world. Any other tongue than Latin is used only in certain Eastern rites -in communities which were never in close contact with Rome, and which have used Greek or Syriac or Arabic from the beginning of their history. Even in these the language employed in divine worship is not the spoken language of to-day, but an older form which is as un intelligible to the worshippers as Latin is to the average layman of our parishes.

“But why cannot the Catholic Church use English in England and French in France?” etc. Because she is a universal Church. A small sect or a “national church “ can use the language of the country in its worship. But the Catholic Church is not a national church. She has been appointed to “teach all nations.” She is not the church of the Italian, or the Englishman, or the Spaniard. She could, of course, translate her liturgy into any tongue, but a Mass in the language of any one nationality would be unintelligible to all the rest.

At present a priest can say Mass, privately or publicly, in almost any church in the whole world. If Mass was to be said in the language of the country only, he could celebrate only in private, and he would be forced to bring his own Mass-Book and server. Such a system (or lack: of system) would be unworkable in the Catholic Church – because she is Catholic.

Although in the course of centuries the Latin of Gaul was gradually modified into French, that of Italy into Italian, and that of Iberia into Spanish and Portuguese, the Church did not attempt to follow these changes in her language of worship. Nor has she tried to translate her liturgy into the myriad tongues of the nations and tribes that have come into her fold. She has deemed it wise to retain the use of Latin in her worship and her legislation.

Unity of Speech and of Faith. How well, in the Catholic Church, her oneness of speech seems to typify her unity of faith. More than that – it not only typifies but helps to preserve it. We can readily understand that it is of the utmost importance that the dogmas of religion should be defined with great exactness, in a language that always conveys the same ideas. Latin is now what we call a “dead language” — that is, not being in daily use as a spoken tongue, it does not vary in meaning.

It is very convenient for the Church to have Latin as her official language, as a means of communication between her members and her Head. To legislate for the Church’s good it is necessary from time to time to hold a General Council, at which the bishops of the entire world assemble. They all understand Latin; no interpreter is required. Every bishop writes often to Rome and goes at intervals to visit the Holy Father; and if there were no common language used in the Church, the Vicar of Christ would need to be familiar with more than the tongues of Pentecost if he would understand the German, the Spaniard, the Slav, the Japanese, or the countless others of many races to whom he would be obliged to listen.

“But do not the people suffer by this method?” No; they are instructed in religion in their own native tongue, whatever it may be-and we venture to say that, on the average, taking them as they are all over the world, our Catholic people know their religion at least as well as the Anglican or the Baptist. But the ceremonial of the Church is carried out in the grand old language of imperial Rome, where the Prince of the Apostles established the central government of Christ’s kingdom upon earth – a government which has endured while other kingdoms have risen and decayed and died – from which the light of God’s truth has shone farther and farther, century after century, into the dark places of the earth.

For the beginning of the article above, visit:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1035-traditional-catholic-answers

(Note: The above link is published by a group that sadly fails to recognize that “popes” of late are false due to their adherence to heresy, including as suggested by the popular “catholic” church of today abandoning Latin.)

[Elsie]

False Catholics are numerous today, and they are easily spotted as they do not cover their heads and do not attend a true Mass. True Masses are in Latin.

So; the crumbling façade of monolithic Catholicism is exposed.

Why don't you 'true catholics' protest?